"Love lights more fire than hate extinguishes." So was he saying love is destructive and only a good surplus of hate can save you? Because that's a pretty good lesson.
I think that in this instance, fire is being used as a positive thing. Fire is a thing that keeps us warm and safe against the chill of night. Without fire, we freeze. Love's like that. And, if the poet is to be believed, loving does more good than hating does bad. At least, that's my take on it. It's late and I could be dead wrong.
But I think you'll see that if you let n = love and x = hate, you can...aw hell, it's not that kind of post, is it?
Sure, that's what he *meant* to say, but I choose to take from it that love is a chaotic force for entropy and that only the purest power of high quality hate can hope to stave it off.
Or at least that we need a good balance of hate to keep love from consuming and destroying everything. And that ideally love should be kept at a distance of about 93 million miles, and even then you'll get a nasty skin condition if you let its warmth touch you for more than a few hours at a time.
But if love is chemical energy turning into heat energy, and hate is, I don't know, some sort of clever usage of potential energy turning to kinetic energy in a way that brings love's transaction to an early end, what I want to know is which emotion is the one that represents the use of heat energy in generating electricity? Whatever it is there should be more of that emotion, because it's an awesome one.
The Laws of Love-o-dynamicsdragoneerlApril 4 2006, 05:54:00 UTC
If love is a chaotic force of entropy, then the second law dictates that it must always be increasing in the universe. Sure, hate can reverse love locally, but there must always be a correspondingly larger increase in love elsewhere. The consequence of this is that the universe is proceeding irreversibly to a point of emotional equilibrium, a Love Death, if you will, where all is cutesy wootsy fluffy bunnies.
Another implication of all this is that no matter how much hate you put into a system, some of it will always be converted to love. Like at the end of Return of the Jedi, where Darth Vader saves Luke Skywalker by pitching the Emperor into the reactor core, even though Vader's pretty much been trying to kill Luke up to this point? It's like that. Yeah.
Comments 10
So was he saying love is destructive and only a good surplus of hate can save you? Because that's a pretty good lesson.
Reply
But I think you'll see that if you let n = love and x = hate, you can...aw hell, it's not that kind of post, is it?
Reply
Or at least that we need a good balance of hate to keep love from consuming and destroying everything. And that ideally love should be kept at a distance of about 93 million miles, and even then you'll get a nasty skin condition if you let its warmth touch you for more than a few hours at a time.
But if love is chemical energy turning into heat energy, and hate is, I don't know, some sort of clever usage of potential energy turning to kinetic energy in a way that brings love's transaction to an early end, what I want to know is which emotion is the one that represents the use of heat energy in generating electricity? Whatever it is there should be more of that emotion, because it's an awesome one.
Reply
Another implication of all this is that no matter how much hate you put into a system, some of it will always be converted to love. Like at the end of Return of the Jedi, where Darth Vader saves Luke Skywalker by pitching the Emperor into the reactor core, even though Vader's pretty much been trying to kill Luke up to this point? It's like that. Yeah.
Reply
Leave a comment